Paola Di Maio wrote:
> No one on this list has ever said that. You, and others, have
> *said* that others have said that.
> I am pretty sure I read it on this list (not sure when or who or in
> relation to what)
And again this problem.
> some kind of categorical statement that 'another type of logic' is not
> possible, that there is only the FOL kind, of which all the others are
> subsets of.
No one who knows anything about logic would say such a thing.
> Which is possibly also true, to some extent, under certain scientific
> paradigm. Its also a known epistemological stance, largely prevalent
> in the
'exact sciences' circles, where 'fuzzy logic' is a dirty word,
> for example.
Well, it's quite another thing entirely for someone to *criticize* a
logic for one reason or another or to argue that FOL is the *best* logic
for one purpose or another.
> But dont have time to search the archive now.
Sounds like a waste of time anyway.
> > I myself and others, without being able to prove just yet, say that
> > there are different type of logic (cant quite tell what I mean
> Which, I'm afraid, is sometimes part of the problem.
> Thats the nature of expertimental work... in the meantime, since I
> started my observations,
> much progress has been made....
> watch this space....
Consider my eyes peeled...
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx